Flickr/House of Lords, CC BY-NC-ND

The UK government’s proposal to reform the House of Lords has now reached a crucial stage – with parliamentarians having a final chance to amend the bill outlining the plan before it becomes law.

The House of Lords (hereditary peers) bill does one simple thing: remove the remaining hereditary peers from membership of the chamber. But a new survey commissioned by the UCL Constitution Unit from YouGov shows that the public overwhelmingly wants further change, in particular to limit appointments to the chamber.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

House of Lords reform has been on the agenda for decades. But change hardly ever happens, because agreement is so difficult to reach. In 1999, Tony Blair’s government removed most hereditary peers from the chamber, cutting the total membership from an astonishing 1,210 members to 666. But 92 hereditary peers were allowed to remain, due to a compromise with the Conservatives.

This was intended as the first stage in a two-stage reform by Labour, but despite multiple reviews, white papers and debates, no further bill was introduced. Later, during the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, a bill to introduce a largely elected second chamber was blocked in the House of Commons. Now, 26 years on from Blair’s reform, the current government’s modest bill simply seeks to complete what Labour started.

Public support for change

Debate has often focused on introducing an elected second chamber. Some consider that necessary for democratic legitimacy, others worry about its other effects. A survey we commissioned in 2022 confirmed that the public see both sides of this argument.

Asked whether the House of Lords “should include elected members to ensure that it is democratically accountable to the people” or “should include appointed members to ensure that it contains experts and people independent of political parties”, respondents were evenly split three ways between these statements or “I agree/disagree with both equally”. This nicely illustrates why large-scale Lords reform has never proceeded.

But we were struck by near-unanimous public support for smaller-scale reforms, including limiting the prime minister’s appointments power, and the size of the chamber.

Currently, the prime minister has almost complete control over new appointments to the House of Lords. They can make as many as they want, at any time, with whatever party balance. This is a remarkable patronage power, effectively dating back to the old hereditary system (albeit updated by the Life Peerages Act of 1958, so the titles are no longer passed on to offspring).

The sole constraint comes from the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), which advises on the narrow remit of the “propriety” of nominees. But it has no power to block them, as demonstrated when Boris Johnson chose to overrule it to give a peerage to the Conservative party’s former treasurer, Peter Cruddas.

Unlimited prime ministerial appointment is the main reason for the House of Lords’ ever-growing size. Having dropped to 666 after the Blair reform it now has 859 members. This makes it by far the largest second chamber in the world (France has the second largest, at 348), and the only one larger than its respective first chamber. The Lords’ size is frequently subject to public and media criticism.

Size of the House of Lords 2000–30 June 2025:

How the Lords has grown.
House of Lords Information Office. All figures are for January unless otherwise stated., CC BY-ND

As ennobled former Commons speaker Betty Boothroyd suggested in 2017, the chamber’s “inflated size fosters [its] laughing-stock image”. This, and the unconstrained prime ministerial appointments driving it, drag the Lords, parliament, and politics more generally into disrepute.

Our survey shows the public overwhelmingly wants this situation to stop. Asked whether the prime minister should have unlimited appointment powers, or be restricted to appointing no more members than those who leave, only 4% supported the status quo position, while 79% wanted change.

Strikingly, this far exceeded the majority of 60% who supported removing the hereditary peers. In a separate question combining both reforms, just 3% backed the government’s position of removing the hereditary peers without also limiting appointments.

The survey showed huge support for reform.
UCL Constitution Unit, CC BY-ND

While the political parties struggle to decide the next stage of Lords reform, the chamber itself has made firm proposals. The Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House, chaired by crossbench peer Terry Burns, reported in 2017. It recommended that the chamber’s size be brought down to no greater than the House of Commons (currently 650), with the prime minister’s appointments restricted accordingly.

Both peers and MPs strongly welcomed the plans. Prime Minister Theresa May broadly complied, but Johnson quickly revived over-appointment. Remarkably, since the 2024 election, nearly 80 further new life peers have been appointed.

At the final stages of the bill, Lord Burns has proposed an amendment to implement his committee’s core recommendation. This position clearly has overwhelming public support.

Parliamentarians should seize this opportunity now to implement a reform that has been decades (even centuries) in the making. I hope our poll offers them the confidence to do so. If this opportunity isn’t seized, the next step in Lords reform may well wait a further 26 years, or even longer.

Meg Russell receives research funding from the Legal Education Foundation, and her work on the House of Lords has in the past been funded by the ESRC.